tv Capital News Today CSPAN December 6, 2012 11:00pm-2:00am EST
we all realized with a sensitive stage with its multiple sensors of power. you do have liberal forces in there in the street using politics and the ballot box. the point i was trying to stress, may last point is the u.s. writ large, the government and also civil society organization and others are largely standing on the sideline here. bob's organization put out an excellent report last week people should look at my organization. usip data private study. right now u.s. policy, also civil society and others were sitting on the sidelines here or there was a desire among local forces including younger islamists who want to bring about changes in their political movement in for the large purse sitting on the sidelines here we need to do more. >> we need to move on to the q&a portion here. a few questions from the audience. if you have a question, research and peer to microphone
circulating. 10 minutes before we begin to wrap a. >> my name is -- [inaudible] -- washington d.c. what's missing on discussions is the fact that islamists have nothing to offer except for sharia law and muslims are fed up with the sharia law. the other point is there's a new new generation of arabs that face the people. i wrote an article about this, who are very different than their fathers and grandfathers. which we should be focusing on. >> can make it to a question?
>> -- something we should be focusing on. our democracy by islamist ideology. what shall we do about the threat to democracy the case arabs are going to sort their problems out. this is the first time they're focusing on their own homegrown problems gloominess and israelis and other people. what should we do about the ideology that is focusing on destruction of democracies? >> would anybody like to take out one? >> it begins by recognizing what it is. a couple of years ago before these tahrir square movement, there is a prominent article about my son brother had. the term moderate is a separate
term because to us it means someone like ice. but in reality, all it defines as the position in a given political context. there were moderate. overseer was a moderate not be, that he raised stilling. there shades of brothers and shades of islamists into public good or the brotherhood to the moderate next to less extreme selassie. as far as anyone in this room is concerned, these people are extreme. we need to have some kind of understanding of who these groups are and how an debacle of their values are to our own. so that is .1. .2 is something bob said in his remarks, which is some that we
need to respect who they are. respect is to understand the gravity of what they're about. they are not about in its current delivery of social services. they are about virtue. the fundamental political distinction going all the way back to the greeks is the question of are you a virtue-based society of very freedom they society with? islamic republic in iran, the new government in egypt. all of them organize political life on the basis of what they believe is virtue. it is a totalitarian society because it dictates your scope of action in life. it dictates fundamental moral choices about who to marry and whatever, all kinds of stuff. that's another way in which we need to understand and that also leads to some deeper appreciation of how you go about
tackling this. very briefly, we should distinguish the term liberalism from democracy. democracy is simply a process. you had an election. he took a bow for their own enslavement and often do. people forget this. they think world for freedom. i'm sorry, but there's a constituency that is per submission. this is a site goes fact of life that is not fully appreciated. in the west. so how do you go about it? to distinguish between democracy and liberalism and you try as best you can to promote the spirit of liberalism, even if it is procedurally at the expense of the brotherhood. >> your response to that? >> i'm listening to this discussion which i enjoy thoroughly, but my mind as to how we do this.
and i would throw home one point that i'm trying to stress here that i may agree or disagree with some of the things said. the problem in washington is you look at the democracy, freedom and liberal promotion mechanisms we have. they're actually not as nimble as they need to be. i look at benghazi and answers questions about the talking points, but the bigger policy deployed when he set up is how do we influence the next faith? ambassador chris stevens who is killed to honor his memory. redeemer people speaking arabic to understand the types of different political forces we could work with and as we actually need to kill. right now the washington debate isn't about that. it's a little intellectual, narrow in focus, getting the facts straight is important. but were not well poised on egypt and other countries in the region and collectively to have the role in shaping it.
>> felix must thought from daily paper. >> thank you, gentlemen. and they said very much enjoy the cultural debate. i hesitantly stepped into the family feud. if i can make two very quick points. what i thought was missing, especially deadly to your firm broth and brett perhaps is this path leads us down a road that would not be to democracy. but what is the alternative path? research to try to run a dictatorship and aligning the united states the tyranny of the region and that didn't work. i like to hear more about that. my second point is when we talk about the islamists come over using a very broad brush here because there are many different types of islamists and are certainly hezbollah shares fared better with the muslim brotherhood. watching how things go in egypt and egypt is mentioned quite a bit because it's role in the region and the weight that
carries. somebody who considers themselves a sec other liberal, i'm not too upset about the way things are going in egypt. i'm not too upset about facing millions of angry egyptians in the street. i take note may come to power and all of a sudden a treaty with israel is not their number one priority. but they're not banning alcohol and nightclubs for the sake of the economy. when we talk about islamists, we have to take note that some islamists are different than others and some will naturally have today more pragmatic affair in a position of power. i'll stop there. >> rob, do you want to kick that went off? >> i have a couple thoughts. this is also connected to another slippery ice pick to the argument. if on the one hand -- if on the
one hand people -- islamists it will people of faith, everyone on the other side are liberals. i don't believe i ever use that term in anything i say. the opposite of islamists is not islamists. there's a huge spectrum of people who will run into the streets because they are like the kia network, not at what their life is going to be like under islamists will. they go from radical communists on one hand to western oriented liberals on the other. and indeed, many people of faith, millions of people of faith. five times a day, praying the psalms as opposed to many people who are the ham and cheese eating muslims. they are all fair. i see the natural audience is.
it's everyone has a posted a totalitarian agenda of the muslim brotherhood. and due to your. this is where the friendly debate between my partner and i disagree, but a truly free and fair elections where there's a level playing field and institutions of government work, not islamists will try it. in answer to brian's operational suggestion -- operational question brian hunt about what you do. very simple answer. during the cold work on the cold war, say afghanistan repeated price. we bit the bullet. the cold war was a top priority and we aren't the islamists to defeat our number one enemy. yes they were very negative result, but the goal was the end of the cold war and we want and the soviet union is gone.
today i don't mind giving money to communists and leftists and socialists and hoping none because i'm not worried about the return of the cold war. i'm not worried about leftists coming to power. my god, that should be the biggest challenge we face. we should not be indifferent to the outcome in egypt in countries across the middle east. we can both play a role in ensuring a level playing field in assisting those who we have an outcome in their success. we can do both. they are not antithetical and that should be what our agenda is in this country. >> okay, a few add-on comments. >> i would agree with a lot of what rob said. i basically believe in almost everybody's business and i
certainly believe in unleashing the agency, even though it doesn't want to be unleashed to support covertly because i think i don't think anybody will openly take our money, but covertly supporting liberals and the motley crew that rob mentioned. great, i'm all for it. there was much cash as you can find that we can get out of washington, give it to them, hope they organize, hope they win. the odds of them winning aporia. turkey had free elections and they're lots of liberals, corrupt and all the rest. the subplots of them everywhere. more secularist muslims than any place else in the lawsuit and they lost again in the boston free election. so go ahead and do it. by all means come in the united states should use the bully pulpit, support liberals come to support of faith who are not islamists amongst the muslims. but be prepared you can do that
and they're still going to lose. you have to islamism in power in assisting you have to have the great debates with them in power. >> very briefly. i'm of two minds about supporting liberals because when you go to places like cairo and a non-inmate liberals, they tend to be nauseating. the idea of liberalism is what they read in a gnome chomsky book. [laughter] so there's a real question and i think reuel is right. you could throw a lot of money at buying laptop computers for the young liberal society of alexandria and vicious money down the train. i'm always struck -- i remember having meeting with deputy head of the brotherhood six or seven years ago and he turned out he
had a decree from the university of missouri and obviously morrissey has a degree from northridge -- there you go, most of the iranian leadership, most of the early iranian leadership had decreased from american universities. the problem we face is quite uneventful and there's no easy solution, which is that in effect we in the west have been trashing the good name of liberalism and pushing out a bogus garbage liberalism, which has been readily received and divided by students from the middle east coming to american universities and up this stuff and going back and starting a revolution. africa booty. [inaudible] iranian revolution comes for me to fix these and 70s on western universe these. this is a very fundamental problem, but it's worth recognizing that until someone
is actually liberalism as we define it is what you find in government and the federalist papers and john stuart mill in tocqueville, mostly guys i'm afraid. that's what liberalism is. and you can start constructing an idea that can compete with islamism because islamism basically says we stand for justice. every islamist parties for justice development party or just his freedom party. how do you actually -- how do you offer a competing liberalization in the arab world that can stand up against that? i don't think -- throw money at it or have some program or some covert action. we need to approach the issue in some sense philosophically. the reality is a spirit that we can do except hopefully protect the interests we currently have in the region. or we can dig for the next 30 or
40 years about how you create cadres of liberals who may some day when their country. i grew up in mexico very briefly. mexico is this backward authoritarian authoritarian face abuses or presidents, lopez portillo and then you could guys like saverio in college around. where do they come from? they have a phd from the university of chicago. that's how it happened. it was like 10 guys. i miss 10 people, educate them and maybe some good will come 20 years down the road. >> you know you mentioned the justice component of a lot of islamist parties. there's an argument that can be made that this is response to the corruption of these u.s. sponsored regimes and in the case of gaza, which he mentioned was a very serious component. any thoughts on how to combat that were placed in the right
direction? >> for the record, i am against corruption. i just wanted to clear that up. yes, look, it goes back to the point i thought i made in my remarks that islamists didn't win. i'm not islamists lost, whether they were the former corrupt regimes or divisions among the non-islamist parties today, they lose. they lose they screwing up the delivery of services. in this by being so corrupt. they lose and islamists are there like they've been for 80 years, waiting to take advantage of whatever opportunity through violence or nonviolence. we didn't even discuss their relationship with violence and nonviolence, which is a very important issue. and they are there like vultures to reap the benefit of these regimes. we can build then we can help them healthy alternatives built
better. >> thank you good we have a question in the far corner over there. >> yes, greg askin delia at the center for national policy. thank you for the debate. my point here is there's a suggestion that panelists that once islamists come to power via the ballot box they won't give up our work going to have sort of renewed dictatorship types in the middle east. but the events in egypt over the past few weeks suggests that you have a new politicized class of people who are not going to take that. so i agree with one of the previous questioner said in some respects this is quite healthy that you are going to have these deep debates and divisions within the arab world with the muslim world and people are not going to accept dictatorships like they have in the past.
this underrated the panelists could comment on that. thank you. >> the point i was trying to stress on my comments on each of them report we put out about managing change in egypt by these multiple centers of power that didn't exist under mubarak. they are out of the opening competing through institutions and other things. this is an early stage of the game. as rob cited, the last presidential election results, there's this desire for centers of power. the task here in washington and it's going to be difficult to convince her u.s. government to change the way it's done for 30 years because the strategic security imperatives that drive decision-making. some of that is necessary, but how do you actually play the right will engage in here? not naïvely giving money to liberal groups and things like this in not having a strategy. i do believe this is a significant test inside egypt. my prediction where rob and i
may disagree is that it's going to force islamic political parties, least honest to change their ideology. if the system remains open, if there's a big debate, i don't see it going backwards in terms of the diversity and as large as it is as hard for me to imagine that going backwards. >> okay, we are going to move to her closing remarks and go in reverse order. see you can have two minutes here to make your final plea to convince this audience against the motion. >> at them in 1979, jeane kirkpatrick were an influential article of dictatorships and double standards in which he argued but is now a case the paley of neocon position i find myself attracted to. the united states is better
served supporting if necessary, not always, but it's necessary secular authoritarian regimes against totalitarian alternatives. totalitarian alternatives then as now often can come to power by means of democratic or populist movements. but just because they come to power that way doesn't mean they govern that way. i think that is a distinction worth keeping alive in our minds today. i thought to imagine now that the political space, these terms the political space has been open for new forms of competition. ohlone. the french revolution. jim woolsey set up at the first time. start with the tennis court. you're not entering the terrorist stage. let's pray for thermidor because we are now seeing a process
of -- the process of totalitarianism coming into too many middle eastern -- middle eastern countries. it's important to recognize that for what it is. it's important to see who these guys are. it's important not to deceive ourselves that they come in all kinds of the rainbow of food shades. they don't. it's black, gray or very, very dark blue. so i would urge people to think about. one last point because the nights on political philosophy. we need to learn about lock in the, but comes out of the debate about this guy called robert filner argues for monarchy. monarchy is looking better and better in the middle east. it is one country that seems to have figured it out so far as morocco and maybe that should be a model for other places as well. >> thank you, brett.
ryan. >> and basic army for the proposition is an argument for reality of the opening your eyes and see where we are today two years into these uprisings in these changes. in a region of the roach is narrowly focused on the middle east, which has about 20 countries, you have seen political change but at least the leadership enforced. in two of those countries the same islamist forces come to power through the ballot box. two other islamist political parties as some sort of more marginal role in libya. we're at the start of a process and i think our response from washington has been sort of philosophical intellectual, but not very operational. i think this process is moving forward. you look at the demographic social economic pressures these societies face. of these countries, political as i make forces will come to
power. they will face competition from other non-islamist forces. politics are becoming much more complicated than what worries me the most in washington and capitol hill is we ourselves don't have a functional political discourse about her own issues, the love how do we respond in clear strategic ways to these events of the region. the region is in for a longer period of time and change the central eastern europe based. i also think america played an important role -- should play a role in this. write your voice has been largely muted by her tunnel visions, by someway we can do this in our government and outside of government falsified. the main argument is it is upon us and more is coming. more changes coming. some of that likud islamist forces will need to figure out how to best use their power to shape and influence.
>> thank you very much. i'm to run. extra bonus points if you can wait that hamon cheese eating islamist line america. >> a couple of closing points. first, we can collectively -- maybe i'll just say myself, generally with project a certain bigotry of low expect nations on muslims in the arab cultural world, which is those of us who are various religious faiths here know the extent to which we practice our faith in how faithful we are to this or that religious prescription. do we know that we fall pretty darn sure, but we think muslims, they'll pray five times a day. it never touched a scotch. every commandment that is in
islam and of course they all submit to the will of their local imam et cetera, if better comic better. it doesn't work that way. muslim is in general is not so far different than access here. muslims want to be political of the way we want to be political. but it's not fall prey to the bigotry of low expectations that they can't make resort choices about their own political organization and that therefore to fall prey to that committee will accept the proposition that islamism, essential, unavoidable, inevitable, malarkey. it is not inevitable. it is not inevitable. but in politics is unavoidable quirks nonessential but if we want to be the great ideology that jim woolsey spoke about
this morning i more want to that great. it is certainly nonessential to embrace victory victory of people who have ideology. because then, what does that mean about us? it means we are vanquished coward's in the face of ideology. let us try to defeat it are the means that we know you're the one refused in the past against other ideology and we know it works and we combine men and women in this part of world to be our partners to do that. >> last but not least, reuel. >> i actually thought rob was making the argument for me till the end there. [inaudible] [laughter] i strongly recommend that you read jean kirkpatrick's dictatorships and double standards and i also recommend you read my friend bob kagan's
demolition as a leader and commentary. i would just say this, but alice alighieri knows what he's talking about when he says democracy is a cancer and is spreading through the most impolitic and is perhaps the number one thing they fear. ayatollah in iran knows what he says that we've got to kill a democracy because then i ran for they have a fraudulent democratic system, the process of actually going out to vote created the earthquake in 1997 and created even greater earthquake in 2009. there's not a single cleric from a single first-rate cleric in iran with the exception of ms. bios see who argue against now. i do not have enough time here to explain, to name the individuals who are diehard, revolutionaries, diehard
anti-american islamists in iran who have fallen away because of the practices of the theocracy. we don't know what the evolution will be under a democratic system as opposed to a dictatorship. unrated readership we will see a complete falling away of the intellectual class towards the democratic ethic. the third in a free election in 2000 we would not for about iran today. we would not worry about the nuke. i suggest adjusting the pic of democratic process will give you a better chance of evolution undertook readership we might not have to wait that long to see that evolution happened. [inaudible] >> no, there wasn't. then enough free election amongst people who were at 110 diehard revolutionaries. i suggest evolution will be greater under a democratic system we just have as much
voices. words are keys to our imagination, our capacity to envision things. we ourselves are not completely tied to print on the page census of writing, but i do that there's no other art form so readily accessible other than perhaps film, which we work with, too. but it is something -- there is something in literature it just captures the human spirit.
>> now, a former iranian political prisoner talks about the abuse she suffered while under arrest. she is joined by a former obama if estrich and never surrender brander discussed iran's nuclear program. from the foundations for defense of democracies, this is about an hour. >> good morning. it's a very interesting panel, so i want to get quickly to questions. publishers quickly set the stage. i don't need to tell anyone who's in this room about the deaths of the problem of human rights abuses in iran. i would just read very briefly from the report that the u.n. special rapporteur for iran files with the u.s. assembly september 20th 11 in the repertoire highlighted a pattern
of systemic violations of human rights. iran has refused access to the united nations special rapporteur on human rights for for several years now. september 2011 the u.n. general submitted a report in which he said he was deeply troubled by reports of increased numbers of executions come amputations, arbitrary arrest and detention, unfair trials, torture and ill-treatment in a crackdown on human rights activists, lawyers, an opposition that exists. just to draw one prefix ample from the weeks news, there is actually a guess what qualifies in iran briefly is good news, a well-known human rights lawyer ended her 49 day hunger strike on december 4th. her name is nazarene to show
day. she has been imprisoned in prison since 20 tenanted machine had imposed a travel ban on her has been an-year-old daughter, sushi was on a hunger strike for 49 days and has actually stopped the hunger strike amid an indication they will risk the travel ban. so the victories are a small and hard won and the news is relentlessly negative. but it comes at an interesting moment vote for iran, which has parliamentary elections next june, typically during periods of time when there is that democratic processes to previous panel alluded to. it is even greater pressure and international scrutiny on iran's human rights record and perhaps temptation by the regime to be even more repressive. and likewise, the obama administration the president's reelection faces an interesting set of questions about how best
to continue on the strategy of trying to prevent the iranian nuclear program from arriving at the point where they're actually able to produce a weapon in how you tie an anti-proliferation policy with the human rights policy is an issue that is often been difficult for policymakers to reconcile. so why don't i quickly just open it up. maybe i will start with marina turks here is that this is so personal and may be asking even a basic level whether you think life for ordinary irradiance has gotten better or worse in the last few years. just give us your best sense of what the human rights landscape looks like today versus a five years ago were a decade ago. >> well, i guess this all depends on how much people know
here about the absolute disregard for human rights in iran is in general. i don't know how much you know actually about it. in 1979 when the revolution succeeded we had hoped that promises freedom and he cannot we had hoped iran would become a democracy. that was not the case. my dad was a ballroom dancing instructor, a christian from iran. dancing became illegal, singing became illegal, holding your boyfriend can the public became illegal in the school now we have to cover our hair and cover ourselves. i've grown up wearing a miniskirt and tight t-shirt and i'd dancing on the beach, wearing a bikini. all of this he came up they so with literature and geography committees of the early days in 1880. our subjects were released by government propaganda.
i had grown up reading gene nelson and ernest hemingway and now i had to face propaganda eight hours a day and i was 14 years old. what do you think honestly if having on becomes illegal. the whole political 14-year-old, yes. but you've been fun and a 14-year-old becomes political to have a good time. that's up a thesis about the protests that began in iran as early as 1980. under sharia law came into place in iran for early after the revolution and under sharia law, democracy and the freedom that the citizen is impossible. in the same sharia laws that govern iran in 1979 and 1880 are still in place. there have been some cosmetic changes here and there needs
what administration you have under the presidential. what a mom is the president of iran, things are better. so now polish you could get away with. but does that really make a big difference quiz to set in iran becomes democratic under people like him? now, sustained set of laws that govern iran. under this constitution, freedom and democracy is impossible. i'm sure you all know about the american hostages. everybody knows because the movie argot just came out. just after the hostages were released, i was in prison in iran. at the time, mr. husseini movie was prime minister. i was bound to bair at the age of 16 with a table.
then when you're so swollen that your skins about to burst, and they make you walk. and when the swelling goes down a little, they beat you again. it's a cycle. are things any better now for prisoners in iran? no they are not. it's not worse if not for systematic. that is the situation in iran. in the american hostages are free, thousands of young iranians were political prisoners in various arenas prisons. we were sitting in prison thinking this can't be real. 90% of us were under the age of 20 that we are waiting the world to say some thing and come into the present. but you know what, nobody said anything. the world didn't care. the world didn't know. i don't know what was wrong with the world, but there is something definitely wrong.
and that is why i'm here. i'm here to make sure that the story of iranian political prisoners, including the ones who are now present are heard in my heart goes to every single one of them. either way, if you're registered in helping them, please come and see me after. thanks. >> thanks, marina. [applause] >> alley, i'd like to ask you in the last few years, those of us who write about iranian sanctions policy have heard a lot about the increasing power and ubiquity of the islamic revolutionary guard corps. hillary clinton a couple years ago said iran was edging close league to be in the military to peter should. i wonder when marina talks about this long history of abuse of
political prisoners by the agents of that abuse had changed over this 20, 30 year span and whether the increased role has an impact on the human rights landscape. is the power of military know me making matters worse? >> thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. and thanks to ftd for arranging a panel discussion about human rights. it's rather interesting that in the city in washington d.c., most panels about iran are about the nuclear program. that is almost nothing that the human rights program. the iranian audience in the reading public because it means you care about your own security. you care about the implications of the islamic republic coming into an armed state. what happens in iran does not really matter to washington.
this is the signal washington has been sending to iran and i think this panel and ftd's initiative to make human rights issue a more important issue on agenda since a signal to the reading public, telling them that you do understand that a government with its own population and of course not also be trusted when it comes to international. just imagine how it behaves as it also is understood. your question about the role of the revolutionary guard, yes a revolutionary christ has inherited the estate. something also discussed by the previous panel. went home maney was making promises to the rainy pete will in the 1960s, he promised the people of iran, not democracy. he promised them justice in this world and salvation in the next.
now, no one has returned from the other world to tell us that they actually achieved salvation. but we know there is no justice for us in this world. and the system is legitimizing its abuse of the population, its correction by reference to the holy book. now yes, iranians are mostly muslim. but their understanding of this on the severity of understanding. the government of iran is understanding and day for examples do not understand the sharia law. i have to say [inaudible] at that time they had a tribunal that gentleman called
[inaudible] also called the hanging judge of iran. he was inducted to kurdistan to take a look at a group of prisoners gathered there. i believe there were 100 quds that there who are committed some vaguely anti-revolutionary, counterrevolutionary activity. the judge did not have time to go throw the cases, so he just said shoot every second of them. when people asked him come assert, some of these people may be innocent. he had a sense of humor. he said he he seek him if they are innocent, they will go to heaven. if they have committed some syndicates the revolution, they receive their punishment. this is how the system is working back then. now it is a different type of system. the revolutionary guard officers
presents a new generation of iranians. there are replacing the all clerical class, is used to universities, studying theology. the new generation at the iranian iraq war. the iran-iraq war and world war i for german. the chairman's coming out of world war i were to get his wanted to correct the injustice of the past. but then, correct an injustice of the past is more important in making sure many a better country in the 1970s. unfortunately, we see many revolutionary guards. they no longer have the same week the clerics have both of these terrorist in order to control the population. particularly bair funded trials.
we have people who oppose iran in the 1980s who today themselves have become prey to the system. they show up at trials in contrast agents agents for the cia and emi six. sometimes the public sometimes wonder how they have time during the week so they can provide services. of course no one believes that. no one. not a single iranian police these people who serve the revolution have completely become counterrevolutionaries. but the idea is to instigate and get into the hearts of the rainy process, telling them that somebody like mr. massari who researches in this server, if he is not safe, he has to tear up
i'm sure fire. his cabinet ministers in the 1980s have short trials, but i is a simple iranian citizen -- [inaudible] this is the change. >> thanks. emmanuelle, i want to move on to you in light of what the difference blurriness felt during her period of imprisonment from the west or from the outside world and given ali idea is a novelty in washington. what does that say about the west is doing? pup measures to the western united states are taking specifically aimed at iran on its human rights record is supposed to proliferation? >> first of all, i want to thank the panelists and the audience and fdd of course for giving me
the opportunity to speak here today. it's a pleasure to be here. you know, in the last couple of days i wanted to look for specific city about the kind of tools that are present in the basket of western policy when it comes to human rights. so what do the webpage of the european access page because they have a useful summary page of everything that has to do with human rights when all the countries they have relationship is with, including iran. the one thing that jumped to my eye is a great to human rights on that page was the indication that the european guidelines and human rights in the diaspora to subjects from within right, death penalty to freedom of speech is also available in farsi alongside the other 22
languages. it kind of struck me how amazing it is. i'm sure millions of iranians are rushing to the website of the european union to read the guidelines and human rights, which clearly having a great impact on their lives. one of the problem. we are confronted with a huge dilemma. the dilemma is the following. we want to stop iran from having nuclear weapons and there is a widespread belief among policymakers that if you pursue a policy of support for democracy at the same time, a regime will move away from negotiations. if we have to choose between depriving the regime nuclear weapons were depriving the regime of its power inside the country, it's easier to achieved the former rather than the
latter end is better overall that we can live with a nuclear weapon and we try to pursue a freak or rand they might end up with an identical nuclear arms. it's an understandable dilemma. we haven't invested significantly on creating human rights. there's a lot of things we can do to increase our policy basket. by the way, there's also some thing expedient and instrumental and amplified the volume of support for human rights that if we want to force the regime to make a choice between a nuclear arsenal and survival, the best way to convince them that it's time to negotiate is to tell them we are going to do everything in our power to bring you down.
i think there is also that level. but also supporting values which we believe are intrinsic to human nature. they believe they are entrances to what we are. it's not a good thing to be where it's convenient and not outside the western world. there's a long list of reasons. there are many things we could do. there are many things we could do. one thing that would work very well vis-à-vis the iranian public, which is no great fan of their own government is to speak and use public diplomacy, which we have in our power about my faith really, a lot more insistently to convey the message we support democratic change inside the country and we want to keep the machine held
accountable. just to give you one practical example, one of the things transpiring through the work on québec teen is while we're making it extremely difficult for real true dissidents to come out of iran for once they are out of iran to become active in the promotion of changes. we are rather lax in it comes to providing visa to members of the regime, former members of the regime, children of members of the regime who were for the company to the last to spend time this research fellows who are buying property in investing in markets who are spending time to using our financial systems, and the son of a prominent her
of ahmadinejad's cabinet is the two-tier exchange system is existing in iran today to buy pounds as a more advantageous rate for himself. go back to iran to buy himself a nice apartment. go back to iran to buy himself a nice apartment. these are the things happening on a daily basis that are raging iranian of all walks of life. you are relying out of negligence of our overwhelming due diligence to immigration policy approved in senate who cossette. if you change just that, it's powerful signal inside the country. in the early days of the obama administration. i want to put the same question as emanuele formulated it to you, which is how does one integrate or practice so an
aggressive policy on human rights with a policy that's very centered on non-proliferation. is it possible to do that? tears away and use the word expedient. do you agree with that? by having set the stage the administration took a fair amount of criticism after the green revolution for not speaking up strongly enough, early enough. it is also worth noting about a year ago the u.s. announced a set of sanctions on either gc and other officials on the human rights abuses, which was somewhat different. the sanctions were a little different than the typical sanctions, which are very much aimed at proliferators. this is a set of human rights sanctions. the administration would argue they try to grapple with this. how would you answer that
question? [inaudible] >> i hope everybody can hear me. i think when you kind of look at this issue, which is not strictly a u.s.-iran issue, but is embedded in international structure, that really began to do with this issue is the proliferation issue in 2005 in 2006. and since then, the iran issue has been sort of this calms in a context of international organizations. the basis of it being in that international organization is iran's violation of the obligation. so they are settled on proliferation. for other countries is dealing with this, the british, french, german, russia, china, so once
all tend to view it as a proliferation problem. it tends to be about that issue very narrowly focused. so to kind of move the conversation, you have to figure a different architecture to address that. but the five plus one processors such as designed to do with the proliferation issue in the conversation is that it has to do with arantxa violations of the npt that a security council resolution suggests iran activity so forth and so on. there's two countries however that suggests the issue that this is not a proliferation issue that has to do with the character for the regime but those are for israel. the second one is iran who similarly suggested that this is nice control issue from the perspective of the west, but
there really is an arms control is a multilateral icing regime. there were two that is in this particular who are not accepting the argument. the argument about nuclear infractions. so having said that, if you look at it historically, the united states has managed to negotiate successfully arms control treaties with countries of citizens. they tend to be history of dealing with the soviet union, particularly in the 1980s and you begin to see a very aggressive advocacy on behalf of dissidents taking place. if it is possible for those things to coexist. as was mentioned as a set of sanctions that have to do with human rights abuses. more can be done with the u.n. representative who's not only not about to go in iran, he's not allowed to go into turkey
with the number of the arabian populations have been left herein. but i do think we have to have some degree of modesty in approaching this issue because there were some limitations to the ability of the united states in the international community to effectively alter the behavior of the iranian regime with determinations. you can introduce the sanctions regime and perhaps more should be done. more should be done about advocacy on behalf of those iranians imprisoned. one of the things we see that is interesting and perhaps paradoxical is the iranian regime tends to be sensitive to the rebuke. if you look in the 1990s, europeans invested considerably in essentially the prison systems in iran to the europeans that advocates penal system. there is some modifications of that. all those things can coexist with the arms control approach and i have to say the arms control approach is likely to be
predominate. that's just the reality of the situation as it represents is so simply because everybody agrees this is an issue we should pursue. this is immediate imminent danger. i'm not sure if this much is at crisis essay suggests. but nevertheless, everybody has been invested into this issue. the other factor that people don't we talk about as much if you look at the history of the american foreign policy, many of the human rights initiatives tend to originate on capitol hill. ..
>> some of this an arms controller can want prove because the human rights approach because that creates problems on the other side. i'm not entirely sure if that's accurate, but i believe those things request co-exist in a fashion. >> i wanted to follow-up with ray and the other panelists on a paint ray made which is that there's a frame work in place were negotiating with iran, and that tends to limit the dialogue to some extent. the obama administration, president obama, during the campaign, has been open about his desire to try to engage iran
bilaterally, a last ditch effort of diplomacy before resorting to other options. would a bilateral negotiation, were that to come about, give the u.s. an opportunity to engage on human rights issues? i mean, the u.s.' general policy is they want to keep it limited to arms control, but is that proper, or is there an opportunity or a window for the u.s. to engage with iran? >> there's always been a con accept issue -- there is a group of -- one point of view success that the agenda should be kept narrow because otherwise it gives the iranians the opportunity to diverse, talk about afghanistan, bahrain, syria, talk about this, that, and so the agenda has to be narrow as a need of focusing on the issue of the principle
concern. that's one. that's con accept issue, as far as i can tell was never resolved. when an issue remains unresolved, the status quo revails. i suspect, given the fact the issue of a bilateral conversation is a last ditch effort, likely to remain focused. should it be considered a last ditch effort? i don't think so. you talk about years of decision, the year of that, the year of that. we have more time on this issue. it's a paradoxical one. think about it as not having the time, yet, there's always more time. you know, everybody, so this is in 2008, 2009, somehow this issue seems to have within its urgency a degree of time flexibility. i don't know how to explain that. we have had bilateral discussions before in october
2009, most collectly. if there's a bilateral one to take place, which tends to condition the agenda that's going to be discussed. >> marina, bringing you in on this, ray said we need a sense of modesty about what we can really hope to achieve. i'd be interested to hear what your view is on that, and, also, if you, as we look forward to president obama's second term, what you hope for from him and from the united states in terms' of the posture they take and the amount of pressure they bring to bear on iran, and if they did, how much a difference would it make? purely on human rights opposed to the economic issues. >> well, i don't think that any western country can change the behavior of the iranian regime when it comes to the way it treats political prisoners, and i think that is the realistic
view, but what happens is as i told you when i was in prison, the world was absolutely silent about the fact that there were about, i don't know, 48,000, i don't know what the number was, but political prisoners in iranian prisons, 90% under the age of 20.ht what does si$ug@e of the world, very practical, you know, ground zero diir for us, in prison in iran at the tim was that it robbed us from hope.ñ&r yes. you can want change the behavior of the iranian regime, but what you can do is to give the likes today and 7,000 political prisoners who are right now in prison, you can give them hope because then if they actually hear that you, in the united states of america, and, i promise you, they will hear
this, you are standing up for them, and not about this whole, you know, mask nuclear thing that's almost become a joke. if they hear that, you would be literally saving those political prisoner's lives. i had the luxury of not being a politician. i was in a political prison, and i saw with my own eyes how thousands of young teenagers were brutally massacred after being tortured and raped under the name of islam and religion. to be honest with you, all i'm interested in is just saving one life. if i can save one life, then i can die in peace. now, i know the arguments, huge a lot of them are political, but, again, for me, it is an issue of practicality, and it is an issue of saving lives.
>> did you want to jump in? >> just one piece of advice to president obama and the u.s. opposite of my good friend. never, ever show modesty when you negotiate with middle east easteners. they are middle east after all. we know something about negotiation. you go there with modesty, you lose everything. start here, maybe you end here. this is attitude you need to have. [laughter] i wanted to ask a question about the relationship between strategy of economic pressure which the u.s. and the west is pursuing against iran, and human rights. i guess -- i phrase it this way, the u.s. claims, and the p5 claim that the sanctions have, and there's a lot of evidence
for it, really, devastated the oil exports of iran and devastated the currency. there's a counterargument that sometimes made that you end up punishing average iranians in the process, but nevertheless, there's clearly -- for the first time, perhaps, in a long time, evidence that we have sanctions that may deserve the phrase "crippling" to be attached to them. do you have any evidence -- maybe starting with that this economic pressure is weakening the regime, and does it weaker regime respond by only cracking down harder or is there some scope for hope that it might help the human rights picture in iran? >> there is evidence that the regime has been cracking down harder and harder on broader speckers of the population, so that, to me, is in and of itself evidence that the regime is increasingly on the defense. they have a problem. they know they have a problem.
the way they manage the parliamentary election is another piece of evidence that, you know, they are not going to take the risk of another 2009. i anticipate that with the presidential election next year, you'll see much of the same. they are just not going to allow millions of people to show up in a free election to see how it goes. it will pilot it. that's the first point. the second point is that as it was mentioned before, we have a problem with ordinary iranians in conveying the message because we're, perhaps, still stuck in this notion that truth will eventually spring forth in and of itself, and the iranian regime is doing a fairly good job in advancing its own case in iran, why, of course, they have the vang, but also in the west, and we are not treating them with reprosty when it comes to their own tv stations and their own efforts to advance their own
arguments. we should address head on with a lot more resources, better public diplomacy, the arguments that the regime is making that sanctions are causing a humanitarianñno cay catastrophr ordinary iranians, and to suggest our policy will increasingly look like the iraq sanctions policy which harmed hundreds of thousands of ordinary iraqs. the third point is that we have to find tune our sanctions policy to increasingly go after the people inside of the regime or who are in the proximity of the regime that are greatly benefiting from this skewed balance of the economy in the current situation, and i just want to give one example of one of the many, many things that could be done. there is one thing we all understand in the room, i believe, which is corporate responsibility. when there is corporate, it's not just a company that's fined
or the bank, but it's also -- it's senior management. the people who were actually permly responsible for the bad decisions. we have sanctioned hundreds of iranian companies, but most of the ceos and the senior managers of the companies who are oftentimes, because we identified the link, members or former members of the revolutionary guard, the companies are linked to the revolutionary guard, the senior management part of the revolutionary guard. the ceos, former revolutionary guards, and they are not captioned, free to travel, and free to have bank accountings in malaysia, switses land, andñ&r n all the -- switzerland and all the places where they are able to move baht. -- about. go after them saying our sanctions are not after ordinary people, but the regime. >> i'd like to open it up to questions from the audience.
i think we have about 20-25 minutes left. please, when i call on you, identify yourself, and address the question to a member of the panel. this gentleman here in the third row. >> i'm joel, and i trust this to any of you who spoke about the p-5 plus-1. if you studied the persona of those leading it, hard to find a person anywhere in the world more unsuited to successfully lead this kind of negotiation. how can you attach seriousness to the negotiation headed by her? i'm not going to go into detail here as to why i'm saying this, but anyone who studies her understands it. >> who wants to take a crack at it? >> i mentioned people. i mean that's just the structure that evolved to deal with this
particular issue, and the european, foreign minister of the european union, takes that position of representing the european union, one of the actors in this, the united states, and other countries remitted, ordinarily, political directors. they don't have to be, but that's the way the issue evolved. some of the structures are just continue newties. they have -- continuities. they just persist. who comes into that and the personalities that come to that are functions of the particular organizations, and in this case, it's the european union. i think we tend to focus a great deal on thing on the other side of the table, the british opportunity, or the american representative, but the problem with the p-5-1 is who is on the other side of the table? these negotiations are stalemated. it's not because ladyç÷r ashton. i mean, that's basically the because of the limitations and because of his approach of the -- they have had to the pleasure issues so i think that
the stalemate of these conversations should be on the other side of the table. >> lady down in the front. wait for the microphone. >> i'm wednesdayy child, and the question is for marina, how did you gain freedom? >> it's a long story and i wrote two books about it. i was in prison for two years and 12 days, and during that time, i was tortured, came close to execution, rained, forced to marry an interrogator, a member of the revolutionary guard, and i was threatenedded if i didn't, he would arrest my mom and dad. i did that to protect my family. i'm a christian, from a christian family, i had to convert to islam as well. i looked around me, i lost my freedom, my family, my name, my
religion, my dignity, everything was lost. i found out that this man i was forced to marry, he actually used to be a political prisoner during the time of the shaw, and when the tables turned, he was an interrogator and torturer within the cycle. it's an old cycle. after he was assassinated, his family, very good people, actually, they intervened, and they brought every government official, and they got me out of jail, but then for six years, the government of iran wouldn't give me a passport, but then there was somehow from my church and other places, and, you know, bribes were paid, and i had to pay money to the iranian government, and i have a recreate for it. i'm going to claim it with interest hopefully one day. [laughter] after that, interestingly enough, i got the passport;
right? i have it in my hand. i have a 2-year-old child. i married my boyfriend, the organist in my church in iran, and we wanted to exit, but we couldn't get a visa because they knew we would claim refugee status. it came down to my church again who knew the spanish ambassador who gave us a visa only if we didn't claim refugee status from spain. imagine. we got to spain, we did not know where to go. luckily enough, my husband it had family in hungary, but, i mean, iranian officials that have tops of money, and they find homes in the west. why? because they bring money with them, but then the disdance, honestly, when he landed in canada, we had $200 left in our pocket. we were literally hungry and no
country was taking us, finally, canada -- and i'm so grateful to this country country of north that gave us a home where we had nowhere to be, just one thing, a little bit out of that, but i just need to make a point, are we going to get a time at the end? >> i'll give you time, sure. >> great, because there's something i have to add. >> okay, sure. the gentleman in the back row. >> good morning, the ceo of ther foundation,org, working with political prisoners, and i think some of you mentioned it's clear president obama is going to cut a deal or is going to try to cut a deal with the iranian regime over the nuclear weapons program that will, in fact, sacrifice people the iran. i'd like to ask ali if you could
add on how to tie together u.s. national security interest, and the human rights agenda because i happen to believe the best investment we can make in u.s. national security is to help the people of iran get rid of the regime. >> the united states has good experience in this regard. many people in this, in this group assembled here today belong to the white age group. you remember, some of you, the bad or old days of the cold war, but you also remember how the united states managed to start and have the process with the soviet union, and the idea was that negotiations between the united states should be built into the negotiations, and that hugely encouraged the soviets
society who felt that there was international support for them, and they knew that there was a government outside of their own system trying to give them a voice. that was very, very important. another very important fact was that you had good strategies who managed to organize to manage the people who had left the system and had became opponents of it. you gave a voice to theñ&r opposition movement. you also managed to rage the culture warfare against the totalitarianists. your systems not only did the intelligence services, but also the universities, the academics, they managed to mobilize the opinion of the people in the world of the regime. today, i don't see that let me
tell you what frustrates me. i see waging war, closing guantanamo base for years and years and years, but no one, none of these talk about human rights in iraq? why? where are the good people, you know, who talk about closure of guantanamo? those good people who talk about human rights in secular autocratic regimes in the middle east have totally forgotten. i have an idea of why they do this because i believe that many of them are mentally communists. [laughter] yes, they are, even after the cold war, they are, they are # communists. they only side with the enemies of the united states. they believe that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, and so if the republic of iran is critical to our united states, then the republic of iran is a friend of
me teaching at berkeley, just to mention one of the liberal institutions, and that is such a shame -- >> how do you come up with that? [laughter] >> pure accident. that is such a shame, but use your experiences from the years of the cold war. make -- they try to engage some of the people who receiver the united states government during the cold war, some of those people know how to wage cultural warfare. those people who manage to make it into a movie. why don't we have an iranian -- [inaudible] this is how you can mobilize the world opinion. against those who are not only your enemies and opponents, but also the enemies and opponents of the vast majority of it. >> thanks, ali. [applause]
>> john panel if fdd. i think this is addressed to ray, although, i'm interested in what some of the folks from the more human rights perspective might think about this. just a historical footnote, ray, year of decision, back in 2007 when i had a discussion with the european dip mat, and i used the phrase that with respect to iran, it's the year of the decision for the united states, ran off, and it showed up in the newspaper that week. i actually -- he thought we were about to launch a bombing operation, and i met this and whether we had to kick the can down the road. it goes back to the nuclear
deal, and just, i mean, hypothetical, if we reach a point where the rubber meets a road through a combination of sanctions and iranian fears and concerns of the regime, they do, they were able to get an incredible deal, the iranians then insist that they got to repeat something like what happened in the court in 180 #, getting the hose tamings out, and the first one or two provisions, and that noninterference of the internal affairs, and, in fact, if the deal is on the table requiring president obama, verbally, whatever we do, after that, i agree with tim that the president goes for that, and everything,ñr before 2009,
suggests he was ready, maybe thought the key to a nuclear deal to assure the regime, and the republic of iran, that, in fact, we had no. business interfering, find with the status quo, continuing in an existence in perpetuity. just your thoughts on that, and, perhaps, one of the colleagues commenting on their perspective as an iranian, what they think that impact of the u.s. concession would be. >> i haveñr to say i attended berkeley. [laughter] >> you're a suspect right off the bat. >> that may explain a lot. >> i think one of the challenges that the international community will have and the united states, that if there is a nuclear deal, and a nuclear deal is, i mean,
as you know, it's not a -- the minute the nuclear deal is signed, and you phase an arms control problem, it's compliance. there's a question of whether the treaty's going to be, but how do you sustain pressure on other aspects of the iranian misbehavior in light of the nuclear deal? as human rights is one of them, and i'm going to come back to them, and convicted of terrorism on the american homeland, with the conviction of the assassinating the saudi am em baa is -- embassy. my guess is my hope would be that the united states, particularly in the context of the today's middle east cannot discuss these issues with the
iranians puerilely -- purely as a program. the way the country treats citizens, excuse me, the way the countries of the middle east treat their citizens, has now, i think, entered a norm of the american conception of the middle east. that was not the case in many times before. the case of libya, prospective intervention in syria, a degree of support, and suddenly, the right to protect and how citizens are treated by the regimes entered the political calculations of less than countries than the united states had that had not been there before. i would suspect and guess welt -- we'll continue that sakss -- sanctions regimes on terrorism and subversion on how they treat their@.$"ghbors and citizens. all of those issues have to be considered. i think it would be difficult to do that in terms of the
coalition. that would be the challenge of a post arms control treaty for any american -- >> i don't mean to bring this to a close, but we're running out of time, and marina, we have two minutes left, but i give to floor to you. >> thank you. no, talking about what should be done about iran, i just need to mention this because it's been bothering me, and i know you might know that the -- iranian organizations, organize organization of iran was taken off the terrorist list for the u.s. not a long time ago. in the travels, i ran into many u.s. politics that support this decision, and i'm absolutely against it. the organization, let's -- you know, take it apart.
the word comes from the word jihad, and this organization created in iran in the 60s, and it is a marxist, islamist organization that assassinated many shaw government officials and even foreigners in iran and supported that after the revolution, thought they could outsmart the people, counter, and as a result, many ended up in prison, of course, the leaders, sided with hussein in the war between iran and iraq, attack iran, and, of course; the revolutionary, massacred them, and as a result, supporters, many in prison, many my friends, teenagers, they were massacred in 1988. now, your politicians say, the
majority have not killed anybody in the past ten years. my response is you tell me if i come and kill your father, then after ten years, you know, i don't kill anybody, i come back to you and say, you know, i'm sorry i killed your dad, but i'll walk free. it's ten years, i have not killed anybody. again, please think about these complicated issues. the enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend. imagine that the government in iran falls, whatever way, what is going to take its place? this is the problem of u.s. foreign policy. you know, it's about getting rid of so and so and so, and the same thing happened in iraq and iran, and this or that person or this or that system, but, unfortunately, there's never any thought into what is going to come after so if we get rid of the government and support the
sacrifice and the sacrifice that the american men fought through the specific, and of a little girl like sadoko who died as a result of the atomic bombing. unimaginable what that must have. like to be close to that, to the center where that fire ball originated in the blast. >> follow him on his journey sunday, c-span3's american history tv. the president's eldest grandson talks about the inspiration for the trip at 9 p.m. eastern. >> senator jim mint, republican of north carolina, steps down in january to become the president of the heritage foundation. next, senator lindsey graham pays tribute to the outgoingdent
senator. jim demint this morning and to say i was stunned was an understatement. jim indicated to me that he will be retiring from the senate next year and taking over the presidency o of the heritage foundation, one of the great conservative think-tanks here in washington. my reaction for the people of south carolina is you've lost a great, strong, conservative voice, someone who has championed the conservative cause and represented our state with distinction, sincerity and -- and a great deal of passion. on a personal level, i've lost my colleague and friend. jim and i've known each other for almost 20 years now and i think we've done a pretty darned good job for south carolina. at times playing the good cop, the bad cop, but always -- always trying to work together. and what differences we've had have been sincere, and that's the word i would use about senator demint. he sincerely believes in his cause. he's a -- he sincerely believes in his
causes. he's a sincere voice that people in our party look to for leadership and guidance. what he's done over the last four years to build a conservative movement, to get people involved in politics, like marco rubio, who jim helped early on in his primary i just think is going to be a great legacy. from a state point of view, we have lost one of our great champions. but he and debbie, jim and debbie have raised four wonderful children. they got great grandkids, and i know jim is looking forward to staying involved in pushing the conservative cause outside the body. he was an effective voice in the senate, whether you agreed with jim or not. he really did strongly and passionately advocate for his positions and did it very effectively. jim made the republican party, quite frankly, look inward and do some self-evaluation. conservatism is an asset, not a liability, as we try to govern this country in the 21st
century. and i look forward to staying in touch with jim and to working with him at the heritage foundation to see what we can do to improve the fate of our country so we will not become greece. no one is more worried about this nation's unsustainable debt situation than senator demint. i've seen him deinvolve over time to someone who could just not sit quietly, who had to take up the cause. in the 2010 election cycle, he was one of the strongest voices this he had would a lost our way -- that we'd lost our way in washington. jim is a kind, sincere man, an individual who is a joy to be around. when it comes to what's going on in america, jim understands that if we don't make some changes we're going to lose our way of life. that's what's driven him above all else, to try to keep our
country a place to be place where you can be anything. i look forward to working with jim in the private sector. from a personal point of view, we've had a great ride together. it has been fun. it has been challenging, and i think we put south carolina on the map in different ways at different times, and to people back in south carolina, i hope if you get to see jim anytime soon, just say "thank you." because whether you agree with him or not, he was doing what he thought was best for south carolina and the united states. at the end of the day, that's as good as it gets. because if you're doing what you really believe in and you're not worried about being the most popular and people getting mad ought, then you can really do a good job in washington. to the people back in south carolina, everything jim has tried to do has been motivated
about the changing the country. if you get a chance to run into him anytime soon in the coming day, please just say "thank you" because he did his job as he saw fit. he did what he thought was best and he didn't worry about being the most popular or taking on people when he thought he was right. i can tell you this, when it comes to me, he has always been a friend, somebody i could count on. personally we've really enjoyed our time together, and i just -- i was stunned this morning. but jim has an unlimited, bright future in the private sector, and i will say more next year when his time comes to an end. but on behalf of all of us in south carolina, i want to say to jim and debby, thank you very much for taking time away from your family, fighting the good
fight, pressing issues that you passionately believe in, and i want to thank jim and debby both for being my friend. y'all both mean a great deal to me, and i am just confident the best is yet to come for both of you. on behalf of the people of south >> daniel broke the story on the resignation of the senator of south carolina. daniel, why did senator demint decide to resign now? >> well, i think that the senator felt he probably accomplished as much as he could in the senate at least from his perspective as, you know, frankly, and activist in the conservative movement. couple years ago challenging. some of the candidates that the senate leadership picked to run for the senate, didn't do that in 2012, and when the
opportunity opened up to run the heritage foundation, i think it was competitive. they did interview him, but ed, running heritage since 1977 was planning to step down, and it was a matter of either take this job now or pass it up, and i think senator demint saw heritage, which is a big operation, has a lot of analysts, it was built into a force and conservative politics and thinking, especially, that senator demint saw an opportunity here to carry forward in a broader way than he could as a senator there south carolina. >> you wrote heritage is not just another grassroots organization. that's what senator demint told you. did he give you ideas he wants to see implemented at heritage? >> he gave a suggestion of where he's going.
heritage, as founded and developed by ed, they are building is actually almost literally in the sha know of capital hill in washington, and it's been their intention to send policy ideas up to the capital and fight for them among members of congress. now, heritage, over the years, has developed about 600,000 members around the country, and they have organizations around the country. what senator demint told me is he would like to take the base of heritage's policy analysts in washington, and hook that up with conservative think tanks in the states. there's 55 or 60 # of them, identify work they are doing plus good things elected officials at the local and state level are doing out in the states, even included the possibility of democrats who are doing things based on ideas in
the area of education, welfare, medicaid, and so forth, and take all of that, and elevate it and publicize. he had a marketing company before politics. he admits, frankly, that in the last election, the conservative explaning its ideas thinking that contributed to the losses they took in the last election. >> well, senator had a great relationship with the tea party groups, obviously, that's what mean for the groups with moving to head heritage. >> i think that means he may try to make them to the next level, no one would dispiewlt, i don't think, that the tea party heads, shall we say, had communications problems, and if their basic idea was to reduce the level of public spending, both in washington and in the states, i think that using the force of
the analysis that senator demint and the analysts at heritage have at the diplomacy poe sal, that there is the process here of the conservative movement becoming more understandable to a broader public. >> what can you tell us about the governor's decision who she would choose as the replacement for senator demint, and who does he like? >> senator demint has not tipped the hand there, and there's any number of people in south carolina that senator could pick. here's the interesting, thing, bill, whoever it is, has to stand in a special election in 20 # 14. at that time, both senator graham and this person will be standing for election in south carolina, and what would be most interesting is if governor haley
herself runs for senate? 2014, and, you know, put a place holder in that job for the next two years. there's the prosfect of sars being interesting over the next two years. >> daniel, editorial page writer for the "wall street journal," read his column atñf thank you for being with us. >> we're had explosions of
knowledge in medicine, but not coordinated care, and all of these servicesñhr that we have e so many cracks that the cracks are as harmful as the diseases that we're treating, and you got to step back and ask, you know, are we hurting people overall op a global level? what are we doing sometimes? now we have the institute of medicine report saying 30% of everything we do may not be necessary in health care? when we step back, 30% of all the medications we prescribe, the tests we order, the procedures, this is something, i think, which is, for the first time, really being called out as a problem. >> dysfunction in the u.s. health care industry, dr. mckerry on what hospitals will not tell you, the latest, unaccountable, saturday night at ten eastern on "after words" on c-span2. >> defense secretary leon
panetta reiterated thursday that the syria government would face serious consequences using weapons of mass destruction against rebels. remarks came in a briefing with the secretary discussing the fact that automatic spending cuts have on veterans if no agreement is reached on the so-called fiscal cliff. this is 30 minutes. >> thank you, tommy. first, let me thank secretary panetta for his unwaiverring support, both for those of us in va, and the men and women who wear and have worn the uniforms of the nation. our close partnership, this meeting that we have today, on their behalf, has never been more important than it is today. entering the holiday season, i thank the men and women who spend these holidays away from their families, defending our nation, we're all very grateful for their service and sacrifice.
as leon and iñhr discussed very little of what we do here in va originates here. most of what we work on originates in dod, and that's why achieving our priorities at va requires this close and collaborative working relationship. we have more work to do, but with president obama's strong support and guy dance, we brought the two departments closer together than ever before. we've underwritten joint va-dod medical facilities where they make sense, harmonizing our acquisition decisions, and we've committed both departments to a single common, joint, integrated record, the iehr, which will be open in architecture and non- proprietary in zip. today, veterans wait too long to get the benefits they earned, and that's request we are streamlining information and departments. at va, support dod's
implementation of the president's initiative to redesign the transition assistance program so that it is mandatory, seamless, and productive. the new program provides a warm handoff from service member to veteran status to ensure all who have served are prepared to transition into civilian life, and that they have access to va benefits and services they have earned. with his executive order to improve access to mental health services, president obama continues to demonstrate his commitment to veterans is running deep. we work side by side to ensure that service members and veterans receive care they earned. secretary panetta, again, thank you for your leadership andq partnership, and i say it all the time, veterans couldn't have a strong r ali in their corner, back to you.
>> thank you very much. i appreciate that very much, and i appreciate your friendship, and your cooperation in this effort to do everything we can to bring departments together to make sure that we serve those that serve this country. pleased to have the opportunity to be here again at the department of veterans affairs. this is part of the effort at regular consultations to make their that efforts create añhr seamless approach are working. we are trying to build as the president asked us to build and integrated veteran support system. make noçor mistake, this is a rl challenge. this is not something that comes easy to two very large departments, two bureaucracies, that have their own rules and regulations. it is important to get them to work together.
if service members, if veterans, and their families are to get the service they deserve, our job, secretary of veterans affairs and defense, our job is to make clear there's not gob good cooperation al all levels. this effort can want be about turf. it's got to be about serving our veterans. i'm very encouraged the level of collaboration between the two departments, i believe, is better than it has been in the past, but we have to reach deeper into a level of collaboration that will meet the needs of the veterans. we owe it to them to give them the tools they need to put lives back together, and whether it's the best health care, skelling
in a new career, serving in government, starting a business. this is national security issues that goes to the heart of taking care of the people that fight for us. ensuring that we can then recruit the best force that's possible. we have to maintain faith with the troops and their families and give them confidence they have world class support systems that they've earned when they came into the military. trying to work together to enhance crablation, and in particular, we focused on a redesign transition assistance program or the tap program.
the vow to higher heros act mandated all service members participate in the tap program in order to prepare them for life after the military. we have a large number of individuals in the military, you these next few years in terms of the fore structure. we'll have a lot of people going in the system. i'm delighted to report that we're satisfied with the requirement of the vow act, having been fully tested in terms of the effectiveness at all 206 installations is ready to go. we're on track to implement additional tracks for service members, interested in education, technical training, entrepreneurship by october 2013. working together, dod and va are also doing everything we can to streamline the disability claims process. this is one of the priorities for the president, and it's a priority for us. one of the challenges of the
department of veteran affairs they had to face is handling claims filed well after veterans departmented from service. try to address the challenge, dod has agreed in principle to conduct more detailed, exit physicals for departing service members not immediately filing a va disability claim. what that does, frankly, is that helps expedite the process so that we don't have to go far back into their past to try to determine whether that claim is valid or not. this will help ensure that if a service memberments to file a claim in the -- member wants to file a claim in the future, the va has the health information they need from dod at their fingertips, and they can more quickly process the claim. we also discussed something that is a tough challenge for both departments which is an electronic health care record integration, the ability to
bring that information together across our two departments is extremely important for our medical professionals in order to provide the best care possible. we are continues to work at it and confrontñ&r challenges head. today, both secretary shineki and iñ&r agree to develop a joit dod-va plan for accelerating this program, to try to integrate our health care systems. what we said is that we want to be able to meet or beat the schedule that we've established as targets here. we ask the plan be presented to us by early january. we got to do everything we can to move this on a more expeditious path.
we discussed president obama's executive order to improve access to mental health care services as well for veterans, service members, and military families. in object of this year at the pentagon, i had a very positive meeting with military and veteran ngo members, and i promised them that i would work with secretary shinseki to discuss diagnosis, hidden wounds of war, and that's what we've been doing. we did it again today. i'm pleased we can provide the president our joint recommendations in the area within the next three months by the end of february 2013. we also know that we're dealing with the problem of suicide in the military and among our veterans. it's a terrible, terrible challenge that we are dealing with, and we have got to do everything we can between dod and va to ensure that our systems are equipped to give our
people the help they need in order to deal with these unique circumstances that we're confronting. let me timely close by applauding the dedicated dod and va professionals that do care for our troops, for our veterans, and for the families. they work hard every day. they are part of one family. we support one another. i think we've strength ped -- strength ped -- strengthened the bond between the two partnerships issue and i am thankful for rick and his partnership and those who serve the country. american's men and women in uniform put lives option line every day in order to keep this country safe. we owe it to those who fight for us to fight for them. programs to help our warriors were developed out of the best intelligences. too often, they fall vick time to red tape. too often they fall victim to bureaucracy and intransigents,
and the secretary of veterans affairs, and the secretary of defense deeply believe that we can and we will do better. we'll accept nothing less than the best services we can provide for those that serve this country. thank you. >> okay. thank you gentlemen, we'll have time for a few questions. [inaudible] >> yes, secretary, things you'll do to address the backlog benefit, but plans to deal with the current problems, the more immediate problems we've seen over the last year with nrkzed wait times and increased backlog or are all the maps long term far off in the future solution? >> yeah, i'd say that we have
actions and progress now you could be familiar with, management systems, automation of what has, to this point, been a prairp bound pro-- paper bound process. why, in this nation, the best electronic health records in the benefits administration, we're paper bound. we have been developing this tool for the last two years, and it's in the process of being fielded now. we'll be at 18, although, our regional offices, before the end of december, and we'll be fully fielded with this automation system in 2013 putting us on track to end, eliminate the backlog as we have indicated we would in 2015, and in the meantime, this tremendous partnership with dod will begin to affect claims that are about to be created because we have agreed to link upñhr both our personnel and our medical data bases so that there is not this
search for information in the future. >> [inaudible] help us understand yourño'ñj4(ps sequestering, the impact on the generation of veterans getting out now, all be it, not a direct impact, your assessment how it impacts them, but first you, secretary panetta, since president obama made the saint -- statement aboutlz chemical weapons, and hillary clinton did, we understand the red line, by the world this week, certainly, growing concern about syria's potential use o#i the weapons. can we ask you your view on this? how concerned are you? how imminent are your concerns?
terrible mistake using chemical weapons op their own people. i'm not going to speculate on what those potential consequences would be, but i think it's fair enough to say that their use of the weapons would cross a red line for us. the intelligence we have raises serious concerns that this is being considered. >> barbara, i think the president's decided that the veterans apair fair -- affairs is exempted from sequesteration. i also say as we look at that as great news as the president grew the budget over four years giving us opportunity to take
care of iraq and afghanistanñ veterans who leaving the force, but the reason we meet frequently, i think, this is our tenth meeting between the secretary of defense and secretary of veterans affairs, and something like the last 20-22 months is because we established that there is a relationship between our two departments. ..
>> well, that's the reason we are reading, to ensure that transition. we anticipate the requirements we think of inexorable years is going to be a significant number of people leaving. our meetings are all about focusing on making sure that those transitions are seamless, and services we can make it so that an individual who is raising their right-handed taking the oath of allegiance staring into the military today when they choose to leave a few years down the road, whether it's three or 20 that those records are already resident in the va system.
>> there is no question that if it happens it will impact of those coming home. it's going to impact on what were able to provide them. these cuts are across-the-board under this approach that was developed in a sequestration formula and it is going to have a serious impact in terms of those coming home, the support systems we have not only for them, but for their families. for that reason obviously are continuing hope this leadership in this country comes together in france in agreement that avoids this deficit clips that were hanging on. >> from the va --
[inaudible] >> one of the big problems of disability claims that the medical records issue. [inaudible] to improve the medical records. secretary panetta, something that helps to have a better physicalism maybe this service will have a better record of what their problems are. what you do for the people to know, hundreds of thousands of people appending claims no and are being postponed because of the fact that medical records either to history too complicated to come by and prove whether they have a disability. >> i think production demonstrates we are working these cases aren't immediately available to develop them so we have a fully developed claim and
can make judgments. we do that better reader than that a million claims a year big challenge for us is to get a million plus and returned coming in the door. that's where the automation system called veterans benefits management system is key to our ability to do with those numbers. we push a million claims that the door and hopefully will increase the production. so we get control of the numbers. we both the short-term and long-term set of solutions here. but again, this is what these meanings in this important. >> to the secretaries come a question on mental health. the guidance on treating veterans of ptsd has tough controls on their for opiate and
use of benzodiazepines. how concerned are you those guidelines are followed at the clinical level between patient and doctor in what d.c. to support the fact these treatments -- these guidelines are being followed here just a quick follow-up on barbara's question, given the serious concerns, would it be correct to assume there's no thinking about preemptive action? is the trigger just using these weapons are good intelligence sugar something? thank you. >> let me go what the discussion about opiate or any of the addictive drugs. again, this is why this relationship is important because there is a start point for many of these issues and it comes down to our being
courageous enough to ask ourselves whether we have the right approach on medication or whether we overmedicated. we're going to ask those questions. every personal opinion but i would like to see the results of the research. the deity in the poker community so we have a comprehensive strategy on how to do with it. >> just on that issue alone, dealing with this problem involves providing some prescription drugs. but at the same time should also provide a series of other ways to try to assist people facing this problem with consultation, other assistance, other guidance to try to help people. the ability of others despite these problems, whether it's
depression or drug addiction or whatever might contribute to problems they are confronting. clearly we make sure the prescriptions being provided are the ones that are sufficient to meet the problem and don't know beyond that. on the issue related to syria, there's really not much more to be said other than the president has made very clear that the assad regime might not make the mistake of thinking somehow it can use chemical weapons on their own people and get away with it. there will be consequences. [inaudible] six >> thank you, everybody.
>> u.s. intelligence officials said wednesday that syrian let terry have loaded the precursor chemicals for a deadly nerve gas into aerial bombs. thursday, a bipartisan group of senators expressed support for the obama administration latest morning of the eighth assad machine. an undersea king, lieberman and graham spoke to reporters for 20 minutes. >> good afternoon, i am here with my colleagues in the senate come senator lieberman, senator coons and senator graham. we are deeply disturbed by reports that bashar assad may have westernized some of this chemical and biological agents and prepare them for use in aerial bombs. these reports also suggest that
assad's forces are awaiting orders to use these weapons. to come in these reports may mean that the united states and our allies are facing the prospect of imminent use of weapons of mass destruction and area and this may be the last morning we get it. time for talking about what to do may now be coming to a closer we may instead be left with an awful and very difficult decision of whether to continue on the sidelines and hope that a man who slaughtered nearly 40,000 men, women and children in syria will decide not to take the next step and use far more destructive weapons to kill significantly larger numbers of people or whether to take military action of some kind that could prevent a mass atrocity. that is the choice we now face is a craven sobering decision. we also perform at the starkest
expression of the failure of the administration's policy towards syria. where a savage unfair fight rage now for nearly two years. the longer this conflict has gone, the worse it has gotten. all of those who argue for non-intervention because of the things that might happen are now happy and because we failed to intervene. the fact is that we have now reached a point where there are weapons of mass destruction that they be used and also there is a significant question about the security of these weapons should bashar assad fall. would like to make several points. one is that it's now up to the russian to do everything possible and maximize their influence over bashar assad to make sure he does not use these
weapons. it is time for the united states and our allies to make it clear to bashar assad that this is an unacceptable act. it's also time for us to be ready for any eventuality, including the option of military intervention. that is an option that we must be ready for. the decision can only be made by hard intelligence, which this situation is pretty hard to obtain. but we do know absolutely that these weapons had been readied for use by bashar assad's aircraft. again, we years for president of the united states to make whatever military preparations are necessary to show i thought that the united states is fully willing and able to impose the consequences he has spoken of in
the event these weapons are used. for deterrence to work on msp based based on credible threat and that exceeds the quieter chains of the russian federation i've been very disturbed about a lack of american leadership in the region. looking not at from bashar assad's, we see nothing but withdraw from afghanistan. we watched al qaeda elements able to destroy or damage severely or consulate in benghazi and kill four brave americans. the message has to be said that the united states is engaged, that the united states is ready to be involved in the united states is ready to do whatever is necessary to prevent, an act that could endanger or take the lives of literally thousands and
thousands of innocent people. senator lieberman. >> thank you. we've obviously reached a great moment in the war is ration serious for more than 20. it's great for the obvious fact we believe the assad has engaged biological weapons and put them in a position where they can be used fairly rapidly. i see the back over the 20 minutes of this conflict, this is a series of events, which people said could not have been. this weekend with peaceful demonstrations and when assad was unable to control or suppress them he began to fire to some people may begin to defend themselves in a very unfair fight, which is when many of us thought we should immediately take sides on the side of freedom and give those freedom fighters the weapons
with which they can fight. it happened much too late and not from us you people said of the seas not using his air force to attack his own people and then he began to attack his own people mercilessly from the air. more than 40,000 killed. when we see the government of bashar assad but that has chemical and biological agents and put them into bombs, we noticed a leader with no limit and unfortunately he follows his father proved himself capable of using the worst weapons against his own people. this is a moment in which i have found growing agitation and a willingness to see action of leadership for the united states among members of all political persuasions here in the senate. you've got for members of the senate here representing the
political parties staying with one voice america has to lead. america has to lead an international coalition that will make very clear to assad but he may not believe yet is if he crosses the secretary clinton has called a red line and uses these weapons, chemical and biological that there would be grave consequences. essentially the end of his regime. i hope that the deterrence we can stop him from doing so, but i also believe we as leaders of the world, the united states has to begin to assemble an international coalition that were prepared to do whatever we can to prevent assad from using this chemical and biological agents against his own people. we've sat for too long on the sidelines. we are now as americans getting engaged. the need for engagement in more than not, urgent action is clear
and now. i think we are saying to president obama is stated very clearly there would drastic consequences for assad and his government if these biological and chemical weapons. we're with you. there's strong support across congress if the president takes a strong action necessary to prevent a very, very historically horrific humanitarian disaster in syria. >> thank you, senator lieberman, senator mccain and senator graham. we do represent a broad range of views is from the senate. democratic caucus that there is a unanimous view here today that we support president obama in announcing the red line that should bashar assad who's murdered tens of thousands of people in the last two years take unthinkable step of using advanced chemical weapons
against his own people that there will be prompt consequences. this is not an easy thing to get a consensus in the side of the united take on anything. i joined a statement today to send a clear message to those who from outside the halls of the capitol watch is on fiscal matters, other policy matters there's been a lot of division in this body. on the matter stand behind our president in making a clear statement of principle that we will not stand by as assad uses chemical weapons, weapons of mass destruction against his own people is something where unanimous voice is the only way we can effectively deter, that we can calm the russians to be responsible partners, to be accountable having gotten us, to this point we can say with one voice we are deeply concerned about the ongoing unitarian crisis. in the region. describing nearly two-year conflict is not discussed for a
dozen innocent lives can destabilize turkey and jordan, led to refugees at the region at the onset of winter there's other humanitarian needs need to be met. there is a hope in upcoming decision to recognize this. national council and i for one will command the tireless work of ambassador ford, leadership of secretary clinton in making real progress. we may have differences of opinion but other policy matters but there is no difference on the view that should bashar assad take the unprecedented horrific step of unleashing the worst weapon of a chemical arsenal there would be consequences. >> thank you. the senate has overwhelmingly approved a normal trading relationship with russia. i think it was a vote on my behalf and others who say we would like a better relationship with the russian people in russia government. this is an opportunity for
russia to show the international community writ large you can deconstruct to force at a time of great need. you have the unique capability of the nation to do some good. the red line literally has spread. the line were costing is 40,000 people have died. what bothers me the most small fixated on the killing itself. for forever you're been talking about the need to get involved and stop this before it gets out of hand. we want to shake what happens after assad leaves. not being a volatile hard to go to the syrian people when they achieved their freedom if they would like to help you. they'll say who are you all? we have a chance in the late hours of the site to correct that impression. from an american national security point of view for that secure chemical weapons were going to regret it.
these weapons will fall on one hand and there's a race right now between the pre-syrian army and al qaeda type militias that have flooded into syria because of lack of security. i don't know who's going to get there first. my hope is we a lot with international community will go protect these weapons. what happens the day after assad leaves? he's going to go feet first was going to leave on his own, but he's going to go. after he goes, we need a plan to make sure there's a follow-on force. learn from republican mistakes in iraq. we didn't have enough troops. i told president bush renewed 180,000 troops to secure this place the person who said that was fired. he happened to be read. i'm here to say we don't have a follow-on force quickly to get involved after assad this will be all to pay in the region.
if the president believes we need to use force to secure the chemical weapons were stop them from being utilized to kill thousands more, we stand with them and i'm willing to do resolution on the floor of the senate, seeking congressional authorization to protect us against assad using chemical weapons against his own people and protecting us that it was necessary to military force. final thought, you can see this coming for a very long time. leading from behind is not working. saying you could do in iraq with a light footprint did not work. how many times do we have to make the same mistake before we understand there is no substitute for american leadership and will make it about to be smart about it. do not realize that we can enter iraq. we'll expect responsibility. to do the same thing you did iraq syria is inexcusable.
>> it seems there's a difference of opinion -- [inaudible] [inaudible] >> i either misspoke or was misunderstood. if the president makes a statement, which he has that this is a red line, i think it's important for bashar assad and those who encouraged him to see a united support for the president and taking necessary military action to make real on that. >> i think that is what unites us, that if assad uses chemical or biological weapons against his own people and president obama follows through on what he said about consequences, we are saying we're with you
mr. president, which is to use military action that basically to land the assad machine and i'm convinced most members of congress will be with us as well. [inaudible] [inaudible] >> you'll have to ask them. but if there is sufficient intelligence that indicates there's no doubt about what bashar assad is going to do and i'm not saying that intelligence is capable of being ascertained, then obviously the option of fermenting there needs to be exercised. one of the difficulties we had is to have that kind of intelligence because that is a decision that bashar assad would make. have no doubt -- there's no doubt in any of our minds is established out the necessary
preparations. >> what i believe resending comment is mr. president, we have your back and issuing a clear threat to the response. there are some complexities in terms of what's known and can be no but i don't think there is disagreement. there are credible reports they have credible weapons and bashar assad has shown a murderous determination to use any force come any balance necessary to stay in power. we all have a common concern that this is got into a really critical point in making anonymity in his next up is what i thought was most of portland. >> i think that's based on this conclusion that the best way to deter assad from using chemical and biological agencies now no weapon a second his own people is to convince him that if he does, it will be the end of his regime because an international
coalition led by the united states of america poster i came where he is for all the element of his regime's power art. that is the best deterrence. for myself, if our intelligence points the way a feasible way for us to act to prevent him from doing so militarily, i would support it. but this is a very complicated matter for the reasons most of you know. >> khadija say there are numerous phase. so degree of confidence we would be able to remove all of these threads for these bombs are being assembled is a very complex issue as well. but if we are certain he's going to act, there's no one who would
save, less weight until he does that. but can you get the hard evidence and can you act in a complete fashion? that's a very tough part of the problem. [inaudible] >> well, i think what chris is saying roger knighted a high and the idea of the president as being responsible for that on the table. but it's deeper than stopping and from using the weapons. who gets the weapons? when he leaves, wearable these weapons go? do we need military force to secure the weapons sites to make sure the most radical people in the region to not obtain these weapons? at the present at least that necessary use of military force to protect the region and the united states imported. we need to think this through. it's not just stopping the airplane at the end of the runway. i don't know how far along in
the chemical cachet they are. i'm just reading the paper and you're in the news like you all are. it seems to be disturbing. i think this thing through. it's going to end? is not going to say it's better to be on the ground for hoping that the greatest need to show up when they really don't need you anymore. this idea but he may kill people in a different way. if i'm on the ground and had a family slaughtered by tanker through the house, seems worried about the risk of family killed with chemical weapons. the bottom line is what are we going to do to stop them from using the weapons? goes back to how do you convince a guy you really mean it when he saturday killed 40,000 people. that's quite a chore. i guess we are staying together the president now says he means it and we say you are right to munich, mr. president. we sure do have your back. his searing tv sketchiness news conference, as the title shipped
to her military force to be used to prevent those chemical weapons from ever seeing the light of day and never ever of congress i know of will be behind the president. but what do you do with the weapons themselves? >> that's the lesson of libya. if we did not have sufficient control of the arms caches all over the place and obviously those weapons have gone to places that we didn't want them to do. the second major issue is the increasing ambrogi hobbyist, al qaeda on the ground fighting very well, by the way, that issue is going to be a very serious challenge. the longer this goes on, the bigger challenges. [inaudible] >> secretary of state if i understand correctly is urgently meeting with russian representatives and lots of elements of the american state department meeting with our
much leverage does russia have? negative standing is to help bashar get out and it may be too late anyway. mark technically about chemical weapons, how exactly do we intervene? whether the mechanics? assuming post bashar syria remains chaotic isn't the every man revolutionary guard best prepared to take it they did to? how does the u.s. manage? how do we deal with actors are the terrorist groups?
those that have the terrace designation from the united states? particularly with the day after project. >> great. your question? >> yes. to talk about the transition. how do you deal with moving towards with a consistent assembly if you have actors like the eight days shy rtz or brushing it in the mediterranean and tata group says working on the ground? >> let me explain about the day after project whetted directed by syrians, 45 of
us from inside syria and outside syria. we did receive funding from united states institute of peace in from the germans political affairs. economic, restructuring and social policy, rule of law, transitional justice, securities sector reform, electoral system sam constitution designed are the topics. we have provided recommendations to the transitional government. we have not laid out a template or a blueprint. bay our recommendations the transitional government will adopt. in addition to the work we have dead we are entering stage to to incorporate the feedback from the syrians
aid station said the country and issue a new version. events over the past week letter lonesome months have escalated now we have a new dynamic. within the day after we don't address foreign policy issues of foreign armed agents on the ground. we called for a dismantling of the system and syria but we call for a gradual tibet the vacation as opposed to one within the government. >> what other members like to address the question? to do with extremist groups? or the extreme likelihood in
the post bashar period? >> >> one thing i have written about is the difference between iranians and the united states they have contingencies whether assad falls or not. they have looked to build up the paramilitary the militia that used to be like a gang now it is like a storm trooper for the regime. and hezbollah to turn the grou and hezbollah to turn the group's into a much more established militia of. they have done that but then they look at other possibilities.
with various regions they look into the alliance of convenience and used the pkk to pressure turkey with interference of syria but this relationship opens the door for future collaboration with a number of militia up. so to have the iranian and russian support. census started thinking, the rebels have been able to make inroads to the strip on
the western coast of syria from the north where the rebels were strong and able to make inroads into the villages. there wasn't anybody there. they were abandoned with the from the north where the rebels were strong and able to make inroads into the villages. there wasn't anybody there. they were abandoned with the state of the future of syria. a recent report said a lot of fighting eight males have been recruited and are dying. that the i iranians have gained this out but i am not sure what policy the united
states has taken. >> also about hezbollah? >> absolutely. and they are on the ground especially areas that are bordering lebanon. so and various other towns they are directly on the ground because of a fighters has been coming back. their holding funerals. they have the phrase to describe it calling this it there jihadi duty. hezbollah has pretty much said dave admitted there and syria. they are invested in this as a sod is a strategic ally.
and to transform into the alawite militia they are preparing for the worse case scenario. if they can maintain a base to order lebanon then they will cut their losses to have the syrian foothold. of the primary u.s. objective is to break them so spain having a foothold for the pkk and the northeast is a setback. >> i agree with everything. i would mention a retreat to
the alawite heartland to maintain their relationship should be no doubt the collapse of the regime in damascus. that would be a big defeat but symbolically in terms of their strategic room for maneuver, it is absolutely true the way that comes a and the levels of chaos between the iranians and the united states hands down they are better able to operate. not only with alawite and kurds but those with al
qaeda and the suni jihadist hof in the united states or our survey give. that is a real concern or a tragedy that while the ambassador is correct the politically and materially also to defeat the assad regime is absolutely the way to go despite the best efforts that his not really been the administration's policy. at least in practice and therefore we are paris and -- perilously close, the
window has almost closed to intervene in a meaningful way to have our voice represented for any to look at ase table transition. i am quite worried for policy makers you have to develop the apolo's sea to make the best of what increasingly is a bad situation that the option is to be a positive force by the month certainly the. >> you could wave a magic one what could you do?
that u.s. could play right now? >> he said i was a arming the rebels the only to build the influence to achieve much greater progress to bolster moderate forces and scare the bejeezus like the russians to be a positive force in the fall of 2011. it would be to put to the russians in a position in. i don't believe they felt trapped -- perhaps if they have come to the conclusion. now with progress we have seen on the ground but i am not sure weapons are a serious problem.
the airbase will fall. the extremist element as the vanguard of the opposition and seizing territory worry me a great deal of we could worry about the procedures and process if the intelligence community could do that we feel we have control as a conflict died don't have a lot of faith we could do that. i am left with what is day un satisfactory position of the levying when the ambassador talks about a focus on moving rapidly and quickly to develop the diplomatic option, my sense
this says ben subcontracted to far and with the diplomacy to go out to kofi and non was a certain loser. now they make gains it looks like a viable political umbrella. event there may be prospects the russians are more worried the united states pass to think seriously if it does not exercise leadership those of refining for dignity and freedom, if you are not going to do that to them to exercise whatever you can between some element
of the regime. maybe things have to be done to the side but seeing there is not a deal between some remnant of this regime and the opposition force of outside and inside syria that we back and can be a force in the syrian future and you cannot marginal lives the rush to chaos and damascus. >> as ambassador has said, the revolution started off peacefully and going out every friday and every day. it is important to distinguish between the free
syrian army that are defectors and civilians who took up weapons in self-defense. i don't like the term rebels. we have been and women who have defected that you know, it is brutal and fair to defend civilians and with the code of conduct not treat them but to the increasing number of black flies are a result of the non action of the international community. syrians are slaughtered on a daily basis and we have the 6.plan that was violated before the ink was dry.
desperate people have resorted to desperate measures. we need to be very conscious of that has well as the black flag. >> is interesting to listen to the conversation emperor pro the ability of any actor is very limited. right now we call them the robo jihadist there is no systematic effort by perhaps representative of the faction tried to draw up of
a common platform. but even if they did that to i am not sure it stays for long. so he goes to the enclave but then rehab the fight for relevance which group controls wh if they did that to i am not sure it stays for long. so he goes to the enclave but then rehab the fight for relevance which group controls what? it does not carry enough weight to to bring confusion into the process to have the situation under control for can there is a period of chaos. and to prolong the situation could differential rubble groups. that is my fear.
what i anticipate. but a do not want. i was pushing colleagues and opposition because the wanted the constitutional declaration. i know when you go to specific of partial collapse , a lot of things have shifted. without a vision of how to reassure the community that you delineate boundaries between the group and except week ago and two s.
extremism will grow for a while. it is unfortunate this is my prediction because the earlier entered -- intervention plays the role and we would not be dealing with this. but i think syria of strengths, weaknesses, abili ties. >> for those involved with the doha process, this is a good step to finally have the coalition with the acrid
bombing. all the members all islam mr. those close to it is so we do see the political process denizen representative of the operation. that is problematic. weembers all islam mr. those close to it is so we do see the political process denizen representative of the operation. that is problematic. we cannot keep coming up with a new one. rehab leaders and they are aware of some of that is a possibility with a final push to the coalition of a blueprint to for the future to face challenges that head. >> from the u.s. perspective
which gives me some degree of heart. at this late point* november 2012, when the u.s. >> but we must exercise significant muscle to push out the former allied should opposition council to put in place a new opposition that has some elements that are much more credible and less threatening to the interest to a great deal of seriousness. navy if they were willing to exercise that muscle but it suggests there is still some reserves to move this into a positive direction.
>> really have to minutes for questions and answers? one of the criticisms is the u.s. it is muddling in the council to bring about the demise than not supporting the actual revolution. i agree completely it has many problems. women are entirely underrepresented those that make up more than 30% of the syrian population. but we cannot keep looking for new body is to represent us we want the united states to formally recognize the
sole representative of the syrian people and working very hard with the leadership to make adjustments to introduce quote is to make sure we are adequately representative and to push forward to assume functions of this state to as the local councils are also cropping up. >> there was a hope of some remnant would be involved to call us the government. are syrian institutions complete the sectarian? that question was raised and i am curious for the answer.
>> >> identify yourself. >> give chintsy excellent presentations, it appears we let policy be hostage to the obstruction but my question and is after 18 months of failed policy, to pick up the word, has there been a vision our a blueprint in the state department? might this not be corrected if you look at the foreign affairs